Brown v. Advocate South Suburban Hospital, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 24017

Brown and Wilson, African-American nurses, worked at Advocate Christ starting in 2005; Christ HR concluded petition alleging better treatment for Filipino nurses could not be corroborated.
The nurses resigned from Advocate Christ in September 2008 and joined Advocate South Suburban Hospital, where they claimed discriminatory practices and unprofessional culture, plus unequal assignments.
Brown and Wilson alleged race-based discrimination and retaliation after complaints; they asserted that management ignored their concerns and that shifts and transfers were biased.
From March 2009 to late 2009, Brown and Wilson applied for numerous Advocate positions; neither was hired, with Wilson alleging more than 100 applications and some cancellations, and a medical condition since 2010 restricting care.
The plaintiffs filed EEOC charges in May 2009 and brought suit August 31, 2009 against Advocate South Suburban Hospital and Advocate Health and Hospitals Corp.; the district court granted summary judgment for Advocate in December 2011.
On appeal, the Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding that the plaintiffs forfeited other claims, and that there was no triable issue of discrimination or retaliation under Title VII.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Discrimination under Title VII (direct/indirect)	Brown and Wilson allege covert race bias in transfers/assignments.	No similarly situated non-African-American was identified; no circumstantial evidence of intent.	No triable issue; summary judgment affirmed.
Retaliation under Title VII (direct/indirect)	Defendants retaliated by denying transfers and harshly criticizing plaintiffs for complaints.	Actions were non-material, non-adverse, or lacking causal link to protected activity.	No material adverse action or causal link; summary judgment affirmed.

McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. 1973) (foundation of indirect discrimination proof)
Dandy v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 388 F.3d 263 (7th Cir. 2004) (direct/indirect methods of proving discrimination)
Winsley v. Cook Cnty., 563 F.3d 598 (7th Cir. 2009) (similarly situated requirement for indirect method)
Nagle v. Village of Calumet Park, 554 F.3d 1106 (7th Cir. 2009) (requires evidence of retaliatory motive by decision-maker)
Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (U.S. 2006) (adverse action must be materially adverse)
Harper v. C.R. England, Inc., 687 F.3d 297 (7th Cir. 2012) (emphasizes limits on favor toward non-movable inference on summary judgment)
Phelan v. Cook Cnty., 463 F.3d 773 (7th Cir. 2006) (constructing a convincing mosaic of circumstantial evidence)
Shafer v. Kal Kan Foods, Inc., 417 F.3d 663 (7th Cir. 2005) (Title VII discrimination not equal to personal animosity)
Dunn v. Washington Cnty. Hospital, 429 F.3d 689 (7th Cir. 2005) (statements by supervisor not necessarily actionable)